Review: W-Ring: The Double Rings - A Very Good but Obscure Shmup

[Black Tiger]

"Parallax" was abused at the time as much as SNES hardware effects. Even if most of a game's layered effects were appropriate, you'd usually see something which doesn't make sense or only removes depth. Eurpean developers were the worst, often putting in an out of place wallpaper for a background just for the sake of it.

Sonic's style of parallax is one of the best examples of going way too far and creating a contrasting effect. Not only does it scroll vertically way too much (a common problem, it should barely move at all), but having so many strips only makes it all the worse. You're given the impression that if Greenhill Zone existed on Earth, the furthest back mountains would have to be on one side of the planet and pierce the stratosphere, with Sonic running parallel along the opposite side of the planet. But for the vertical drop to be so extreme, Sonic would have to plummet through half the planet as well. The contrast of elements ends up feeling like Sonic is trapped inside an ant maze and someone is holding it up near a wall of sliding strips and moving it vertically and horizontally with the widest swing they can.

I love multi-plane effects, but as with too many things in the 16-bit generation, developers lost sight of what and why things were originally done and focused too much on differentiating games from the previous gen as well as standing out amidst a console war.

Most players got used to things and don't really think about them. This evolved to the point in modern games where the push for hyper realism has made them feel more inauthentic than ever.

[Necromancer]

However, as I said above, I think it's entirely fair to separate things based on the type of parallax effect they use, and also to say that stuff like dots-as-stars or separated strips that move at different speeds aren't things that look quite as good as hardware parallax backgrounds.

I've no problem with you saying that some parallax doesn't look as good as others, as some of it is rather mundane even on systems that have two+ background planes; the problem arises when you claim that games lack parallax altogether, simply because you don't think it looks good enough.

Your argument is analogous to saying hamburger isn't cow because it's not as good as sirloin. 

[Black Tiger]

What some people think of as "sprites as stars" can be some of the most effective parallax of the generation. But there's a very wide difference between the most basic "stars" parallax and the better examples. It's very ignorant to lump them all together and if you can't tell the difference, you should be deciding tier rankings of parallax styles.

"Strips of parallax" also makes up some of the best parallax of the generation and again, there's a world of difference between the worst and best. Download 2's desert stage looks like it's using a 3D texture mapped floor like a 32-bit shooter.

There's no such thing as "hardware parallax" either. It's all just illusions pieced together with several techniques to fool your brain. Scrolling isn't even real and is just incremental placement of pixels. Tile layers aren't real pieces of artwork. They're almost always cobbled together from tiny swatches to create the illusion of artwork.

If having two simulated (tile) layers pretending to move using a popular technique of pixel placement is technically the only thing which counts as "real" and is "better", then the Neo Geo can't do parallax as well as Genesis and SNES because it has 'zero' (tile) layers and is resorting to the "sprites as stars" technique of faking real hardware.

Getting held up on technicalities only keeps you from genuinely appreciating games as games to play and as art in general. One of the worst thing to happen to 16-bit discussion is all the fanboys who misinterpret spec sheets and argue that there are equations
which prove that their console is the bestest, instead of taking each game at face value.

[A Black Falcon]

Strips-of-stars, "some of the best parallax of the generation"?  In games which don't have full parallax layers or anything else like that, you mean?  I don't know about that... examples?

As for the Neo-Geo, the difference there is that EVERYTHING is made of sprites, so  that really is a special case.  And also of course those sprites can be huge, a far cry from the little dots of light you see in NES or TG16 games and the like.  I'm not talking about the Neo-Geo here, that's an entirely different thing from any other console of the time.

However, as I said above, I think it's entirely fair to separate things based on the type of parallax effect they use, and also to say that stuff like dots-as-stars or separated strips that move at different speeds aren't things that look quite as good as hardware parallax backgrounds.

I've no problem with you saying that some parallax doesn't look as good as others, as some of it is rather mundane even on systems that have two+ background planes; the problem arises when you claim that games lack parallax altogether, simply because you don't think it looks good enough.

Your argument is analogous to saying hamburger isn't cow because it's not as good as sirloin. 

I presume you're referring to the water in level 3 here?  That looks like flowing water, or waves, not a parallax layer.  Parallax exists to make something look like it is either closer or farther to the player than the main game layer, and while there is a bit of that effect in that level in that there are different speed objects, it pretty much just looks like a really cool flowing-water effect.  I'm not saying 'that isn't good enough parallax'... is it really parallax at all?

[spenoza]

BT, you're getting a little pedantic, but you are, of course, correct. "Hardware" parallax isn't really that. Hardware support for two independent and independently scrolling tile layers is often used to create parallax, just as a strip of sprites is. Both are hardware dependent, and both are functionally very similar. The advantage of the background method is the possibility of occlusion by one of the other tile layers without wasting sprites or inducing flicker in the sprite layer, which, you have to admit, is a really nice bonus.

I often wish the PC Engine had been designed with a little more RAM and another tile layer, but it wasn't. We got what we got and the programmers still did great stuff with it, and the games are still fun. And while the absence of an extra tile layer does sometimes degrade a game's aesthetic, it doesn't affect the fundamental gameplay. With that in mind, I would be lying if I said visuals don't affect the amount of fun I have with a game. And I actually do like some of that "fake" depth BT complains about. These games aren't means to be realistic. They are meant to be spectacles. Much like movies.

[esteban]

BT, you're getting a little pedantic, but you are, of course, correct. "Hardware" parallax isn't really that. Hardware support for two independent and independently scrolling tile layers is often used to create parallax, just as a strip of sprites is. Both are hardware dependent, and both are functionally very similar. The advantage of the background method is the possibility of occlusion by one of the other tile layers without wasting sprites or inducing flicker in the sprite layer, which, you have to admit, is a really nice bonus.

I often wish the PC Engine had been designed with a little more RAM and another tile layer, but it wasn't. We got what we got and the programmers still did great stuff with it, and the games are still fun. And while the absence of an extra tile layer does sometimes degrade a game's aesthetic, it doesn't affect the fundamental gameplay. With that in mind, I would be lying if I said visuals don't affect the amount of fun I have with a game. And I actually do like some of that "fake" depth BT complains about. These games aren't means to be realistic. They are meant to be spectacles. Much like movies.

Absolutely, we all like eye-candy. Except, sometimes, instead of eye-candy we get something worse (detracting from the game).

I don't care how any effect is technically achieved, because determining its value to the player is not a technical matter.

It is one of taste.

It is one of feasibility.

There is a difference between "that's kool" and "that's annoying"...and not all parallax fits into the former, sadly.

Notice, I didn't say "that is 100% hyper realistic", because that is not the standard we are using.

Just like SFX in movies, there will be times when violating some rules of "reality" will = "awesome", whilst at other times violating some rules = "annoying, lame".

It is case-by-case.

But, sadly, some games veer too far into "contrived & annoying" instead of "elegant and gorgeous".

This shouldn't be surprising....how often does one find anything competently executed?

All of this is a moot point, anyway, because the PCE doesn't have any games with parallax scrolling.

[Black Tiger]

PCE games with poor attempts to have a bit of parallax are as bad as Gensis and SNES games poor attempts at parallax for-the-sake-of-it.

Too many casual "hardcore" game watchers don't really understand what they look at and just try to match technicalities to their downloaded opinions. The type of people who comment on PCE videos, informing everyone that it's an 8-bit system and all of its parallax is fake and that 99% of the library doesn't have any parallax.

[Bonknuts]

tl;dr - Parallax is.

 The Genesis, SNES, and PCE were made with the hardware capability, from the core system, to reposition any part of the screen at a different scroll point (to divide the screen into different scrolling speeds and direction). That by definition, is hardware assisted parallax. The PCE uses the traditional Hsync interrupt, the Genesis uses scroll ram, and the SNES uses HDMA. They all do the same thing. The Genesis has an addition BG layer allowing for more complex parallax, and the SNES can have up to 3 layers (4 in limited color modes) for even more advance parallax layering.

 All these systems are capable of parallax. All these systems do parallax at some level of functionality when the developers make that choice. There is hardware assisting with the parallax in these consoles. There is no "fake" parallax in comparison from one to another, or better said is that they are all fake parallax - but some methods more advance than others. Even software parallax isn't fake. If you see a parallax effect, then it's parallax. The only thing to say about it, is the level of complexity accomplished for the effect. Using sprites, using dynamic tiles, using hsync interrupts, using whatever means necessary - none of that makes it fake.

 If parallax is created through palette animation, then it's still parallax. If parallax is created through sprites for star fields, then it's still parallax. If a screen is split into "paper scrolls" (scrolling parts that don't overlap one another), then it's still parallax. Etc.

[Dicer]

tl;dr - Parallax is.

 The Genesis, SNES, and PCE were made with the hardware capability, from the core system, to reposition any part of the screen at a different scroll point (to divide the screen into different scrolling speeds and direction). That by definition, is hardware assisted parallax. The PCE uses the traditional Hsync interrupt, the Genesis uses scroll ram, and the SNES uses HDMA. They all do the same thing. The Genesis has an addition BG layer allowing for more complex parallax, and the SNES can have up to 3 layers (4 in limited color modes) for even more advance parallax layering.

 All these systems are capable of parallax. All these systems do parallax at some level of functionality when the developers make that choice. There is hardware assisting with the parallax in these consoles. There is no "fake" parallax in comparison from one to another, or better said is that they are all fake parallax - but some methods more advance than others. Even software parallax isn't fake. If you see a parallax effect, then it's parallax. The only thing to say about it, is the level of complexity accomplished for the effect. Using sprites, using dynamic tiles, using hsync interrupts, using whatever means necessary - none of that makes it fake.

 If parallax is created through palette animation, then it's still parallax. If parallax is created through sprites for star fields, then it's still parallax. If a screen is split into "paper scrolls" (scrolling parts that don't overlap one another), then it's still parallax. Etc.

But is it parallax?

[esteban]

PARA-LAX (the laxative for legal secretaries).

[spenoza]

I would prefer a system that has a pair-a-slacks. I cannot stand all those bare-bottomed consoles flouncing about.

[Bonknuts]

But is it parallax?

 I feel that you're not asking the right question here. You need to look inward. You need to reflect upon why this very question is being asked. What does parallax do for the soul? How much does it need? Is too much parallax a compensation for lacking somewhere, or something, else? A substitution perhaps for a far greater, malignant, gaping hole at the center of our own existence. A missing part of us that has been ripped out... that part of us that feels devoid of 2D pixelized love..

 These are the questions we need ask ourselves. Then, and only then, can we ask ourselves... is it parallax?

[Bonknuts]

^- Note: Please read the above in Terence McKenna's voice.

[MrBroadway]

^- Note: Please read the above in Terence McKenna's voice.

The shaman knows the answer to questions like...who stole the chicken.

[Gentlegamer]

Getting held up on technicalities only keeps you from genuinely appreciating games as games to play and as art in general. One of the worst thing to happen to 16-bit discussion is all the fanboys who misinterpret spec sheets and argue that there are equations
which prove that their console is the bestest, instead of taking each game at face value.

Yup, this is why I give credit to Genesis games that exhibit "scaling and rotation" even if it is using various tricks to create the illusion. All the matters is what the player experiences. Clever programmers deserve credit for the beautiful illusions they create within constraints.